When the 9/11 Commission Report was published in July 2004, it provided a completely new explanation for why the U.S. air defenses had failed to intercept any of the four hijacked planes on 9/11. Certain 9/11 Commission staff members had helped to produce that new story, and at least one of them was behind earlier explanations that were contradicted by the new account. That was Miles Kara, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer. Kara has since been working via his blog and his personal contacts to persuade those questioning the official account that the unanswered questions of 9/11 are often just minor misunderstandings or are simply unimportant.

As a member of the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, I was first contacted by Kara in October 2009.[1] Since that time, Kara has taken a keen interest in several articles published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He has written to me about those articles as they were published. Kara’s input is always critical and focused on supporting the official account.

Kara’s behavior in downplaying the unanswered questions of 9/11, while providing conflicting accounts over time, is reminiscent of the approach taken by the 9/11 Commission. Author David Ray Griffin offered an analogy for that approach.

Normally, when a suspect in a criminal investigation keeps changing his story, we get suspicious. Let’s say that the police ask Charlie Jones where he was Saturday night. He says he was at the movie theater, but they say, “No, the movie theater has been closed all week.” Then Charlie says, “Oh, that’s right, I was with my girl friend.” But, the police say, “No, we checked with her and she was home with her husband.” If at that point Charlie says, “Oh, now I remember, I was home reading my Bible,” you are probably not going to believe him. And yet that’s what we have here. The military told one story right after 9/11, another story a week later, and a third story through The 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.[2]

As I point out in my book Another Nineteen, the military actually gave four distinct stories for how it failed to respond to the hijacked aircraft. Therefore if Charlie’s mother said Charlie was an atheist and therefore did not read the Bible, and Charlie gave yet another excuse, the analogy would be more fitting.

Kara behaves much like Charlie. As problems with the official account of the air defense failures are presented, Kara offers a seemingly endless stream of possibilities to prop up the official account. At his blog Kara suggests that the air defense failures may ultimately be understood only through Chaos Theory.[3] The way Kara applies Chaos Theory is not like the expected situation in which sensitive dependence on initial conditions makes small errors balloon into a major catastrophes. It’s more of an exercise in throwing vast amounts of random comments and data at a question in the hope that the questioners will become confused (experience chaos) and make the error of giving up.

In any case, sometimes it’s best to learn more about a person’s history in order to get a better handle on their motives. That seems to be the case with intelligence officer Miles Kara.

As one of 53 staff members who worked for the 9/11 Commission, Kara was in an interesting group. Like Kara, a quarter of those staff members were associated with the U.S. intelligence community. Another quarter had been employees of the FBI’s parent organization – the Department of Justice. Several were responsible for counterterrorism prior to 9/11. The remaining staff members were employees of the private companies Citigroup, CSIS, the RAND Corporation, and SAIC, or were lawyers from intelligence-related firms like Sullivan and Cromwell.

Having joined the earlier Joint Inquiry, in May 2002, directly from the Defense Department’s Inspector General Office of Intelligence Review, Kara went on to play a large role in producing the 9/11 Commission’s account of the air defense failures. He was present at a majority of the interviews of witnesses and he wrote many of the summary reports. Emails and other documents released by the 9/11 Commission suggest that Kara was a significant leader in the investigation and in the drafting of the Report.

Prior to working on the 9/11 investigations, Kara had spent ten years in the DOD Inspector General’s office. That office was responsible for investigating government misconduct of various kinds and producing reports that let the government and the military off the hook. A major investigation at the time was that of the Navy’s Tailhook Scandal, and one of the sexual deviants who escaped accountability in that scandal was future 9/11 Commission member John Lehman. Kara’s resume shows that he worked on about a dozen other investigations although only one addressed terrorism and only one involved aviation. What these investigations all had in common is that they exonerated the government or military from suspected wrongdoing.

In the 1980s, Kara worked for the Intelligence Center at U.S. Pacific Command. While there he supervised Michael Kuhn, who was one of two lead analysts on the Iran-Iraq War. During this time, the U.S. was engaged in a massive propaganda operation in the region, and seemed to be playing both sides of the conflict with the intent of weakening both Iraq and Iran. Kuhn went on to become the intelligence chief for NORAD and U.S. Space Command at the time of the 9/11 attacks and he was later a witness for the Joint Inquiry into 9/11. Kuhn was also of interest to the 9/11 Commission because Lt. Col. Stuart of NEADs had testified that Kuhn was one of the people whom he had briefed, before 9/11, about the scenarios in which terrorists would fly aircraft into buildings.[4]

Before working with Kuhn on the Iran-Iraq War program, Kara had written a book on Political Warfare for the U.S. Navy. Political Warfare is defined as “propaganda and psychological operations (PSYOP), which service national and military objectives respectively.”[5] Kara was seen as an expert on such things and had spent six years (1974-1980) as a Political Warfare instructor at the Navy’s Amphibious School, Coronado. He taught the two-week course at least ten times a year.

Before teaching political warfare, Kara was a U.S. counterintelligence specialist in Southeast Asia. In 1969, he was a Detachment Commander for the 525th Military Intelligence Group in Vietnam. At the time, the 525th was involved in providing support to the CIA’s massive counterterrorism (meaning terrorism) and assassination project called the Phoenix Program.[6] Kara went on to be responsible for world-wide “counterintelligence services.”[7]

His career details indicate that Kara was not an expert on air defenses, but was in fact an expert on propaganda related to suspected government misconduct and terrorism. That possibility was emphasized by the fact that, while Kara was teaching his Political Warfare course, he brought in terror propagandist Brian Michael Jenkins to help.[8]

Jenkins is known as a RAND Corporation executive but, in the 1990s as the Deputy Chairman of Kroll Associates, he had designed the security system for the World Trade Center. His history as a special operations soldier and long-time right-wing political advisor contributed to criticism of his role at the WTC. Not long after the 1993 bombing it was reported that Jenkins was “trotted out” to explain the threat we faced. Described as one of “the hoariest holdovers from the era of Reagan ‘roll, back,’ RAND’s Brian Jenkins was both an apologist for and one of the architects of the contra war against Nicaragua–a terror war aimed primarily at the civilian population and infrastructure.”[9]

One of the 9/11 suspects examined in Another Nineteen, Jenkins played a leading role in planning for future terrorist events at the WTC, including having reviewed the possibility of airliner crashes into the towers. Coupled with the claims that he participated in planning and implementing a “terror war” in Central America during the 1980s, these facts should make him a subject of considerable examination with respect to 9/11.

During the government’s 9/11 inquiries, Kara never mentioned having worked with the man who led the design of the WTC security system. But he did note his relationship to NORAD intelligence leader Kuhn. Nonetheless, he was chosen to help lead the 9/11 Commission investigation.

Under Kara’s guidance, the 9/11 Commission Report provided the military’s fourth account of the air defense failures. This said that NORAD had only “nine minutes’ notice on the first hijacked aircraft, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth.”[10]

This official account of the NORAD notifications is in glaring contrast to the earlier timelines provided by NORAD personnel. And it appears that Kara was personally behind the false testimony of U.S. Air Force General McKinley and his subordinates when they provided one of those completely different timelines in May 2003. As General McKinley stated to the 9/11 Commission at that time:

McKinley: “I’d like to thank the Commission staff, especially Miles Kara, for his help in preparing for this. Our intention is to provide the chronology first to the events leading up to September 11th, as well as taking your questions to give you a detailed look at how NORAD’s response was made on 9/11.”[11]

McKinley deferred to his subordinate Colonel William Alan Scott to provide much of the timeline that had been prepared. Scott clarified that the times given in each case might have been a little later than the actual times due to allowance for communications and recording of the events.

Scott: “I will tell you the times on this chart come from our logs. The time on the chart is the time that’s in the log. It may not be the exact time the event happened. It may be the time when the log-keeper was advised or became aware of the event.”

Scott: “[At] 9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area.” [12]

Scott: “At 9:24 the FAA reports a possible hijack of 77. That’s sometime after they had been tracking this primary target. At 9:25, America 77 is reported headed towards Washington, D.C., not exactly precise information, just general information across the chat logs.”

Scott: “And 9:40, immediately following that, is when 93 up north turns its transponders off out in the West toward Ohio, and begins a left turn back toward the East.”

General Larry Arnold, who was in charge of the First Air Force on 9/11, helped McKinley provide the (apparently) false account in this May 2003 hearing. Arnold said, “Our focus was on United 93, which was being pointed out to us very aggressively I might say by the FAA.” As Commissioner John Lehman began his questioning, Arnold elaborated on this account.

Arnold: “It was our intent to intercept United Flight 93. And in fact my own staff, we were orbiting now over Washington, D.C. by this time, and I was personally anxious to see what 93 was going to do, and our intent was to intercept it. But we decided to stay over Washington, D.C., because there was not that urgency.”

We might wonder why the General in charge of defense of the air space in the Continental United States did not feel a sense of urgency when dealing with the fourth hijacked plane on 9/11. Regardless, General McKinley went on to say, “This is the best and most accurate data that we could piece together for your Commission.” Given this account, which was prepared with the help of Miles Kara, NORAD was given 14 minutes notice on the third plane and at least 47 minutes of notice on the fourth plane, which it was tracking. Unfortunately, NORAD’s best and most accurate data directly and repeatedly contradicted the 9/11 Commission Report.

In order to reconcile the conflicting accounts, Kara’s Commission colleagues suggested that the military leaders had been lying. In a memorandum summarizing these concerns, Philip Zelikow claimed that,

“Team 8 has found evidence suggesting that one, or more, USAF officers – and possibly FAA officials – must have known their version was false, before and after it was briefed to and relied upon by the White House, presented to the nation, and presented to us at our May 2003 hearing.”[13]

It is interesting that Kara was not questioned about that false version, given that the USAF officers had thanked him for helping them to prepare it. However, apart from the fact that none of these people were held accountable, this claim of deception presented a paradox that Zelikow, Kara, and their colleagues did not address. It suggested that NORAD leaders had crafted elaborate lies and repeated them for years in order to make their own organization look bad. But it doesn’t take a Political Warfare specialist to realize that it is more likely they are lying now, along with the 9/11 Commission, in order to remove NORAD’s responsibility and eliminate questioning about 9/11.

Given the multiple explanations provided by the military for the lack of air defenses on 9/11, independent researchers should avoid accepting new answers or excuses uncritically. And considering the history of Miles Kara, including his past in teaching Political Warfare, independent researchers should be cautious about his intentions when he approaches them. For example, the treatment of NORAD’s 9/11 exercises suggests that some investigators implicitly accept Kara’s vague claims that the simulated “injects” were never made. However, these claims are in direct contradiction to other evidence including that NEADS responders testified to being confused by the exercise and that NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center had to specifically asked NEADs to stop the simulated injects long after they had begun.[14]

No one has been behind the false accounts of the 9/11 air defenses more than Miles Kara, who was a leader for the Commission’s Team 8 and who was both a witness and a staff member for the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11. It appears that Kara continues to obfuscate the facts and support whatever information might prop up the official account of 9/11. Given this, and realizing Kara’s background in Political Warfare, it would seem wise to keep his ongoing input in perspective.

[12] Note that Flight 93 could not have been confused with Delta 1989 which was also being tracked and had landed in Cleveland by 9:47 according to NORAD logs. Moreover, General Arnold made clear, in an interview with 1st Air Force public relations writer Leslie Filson, that NORAD was tracking both United 93 and Delta 1989. Filson also clarified that she was told that they were tracking United 93 specifically. Since NORAD was aware of both, it could not be that Delta 1989 was mistaken for United 93.

[13] Memorandum from Philip Zelikow to Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton entitled “How Should the Commission Handle Evidence of Possible False Statements by US Officials,” dated June 6, 2004.

13 Responses to Political Warfare and the 9/11 Commission

Effectively, this data-point will be included in my prosecution model. Regarding political warfare a few points that might prove useful: Listed below are tactics that these CRIMINALS use to retain their “Plausible Deniability”:

Scientific Suggestion: Purpose is to conceal their actions.

Tactic of Replacement: Philosophical view that is used as “bait” to induce the collective to look in another direction i.e. to induce targets to spend their energy in the wrong direction, while the hidden plan un-folds.

Tactic of Counterfeits: When “truth” becomes evident, “others” ideals and symbols are employed for a defense, which, is a delay tactic that allows time to reconstruct a “false truth” leading a reaction in another direction.

Tactic of Inversion: To flip or discredit “proper” ideals that might appear relative, thereby putting the “proper” ideal in a condition that no longer poses a threat.

Tactic of Ricochet: To induce “targets” to take action against another “target” that eventually “ricochets” back on the original “target”, while THEY watch each target destroy each other.

Tactic of Scape Goat: To shift attention onto “other elements” those who are not responsible, thereby directing the reaction against “other elements”.

Tactic of Deliberate Misidentification of a principle with its representatives: To discredit a representative of a given principle thereby discrediting the principle. This tactic employees “character assassination”.

Tactic of Replacing Infiltrations: A Trojan horse, employed to infiltrate an organization or person for the purpose of subversive control or distraction of said target.

Kevin
I’ve just updated this posting: The 9/11 Operation – Prepping The Cui Bono – The PNAC Projections (Updated 23 Aug 2013)http://bit.ly/13LiwBj
Will add this to my “Foreknowledge Module”: Ghost In The Machines – Added 23 August 2013http://bit.ly/1d8M5kj
Analysis of computer hardrives derived from remains of The World Trade Center Complex
Many are aware of the surge in put options purchased on American and United Airlines as well as several major tenants of the WTC in the days preceding 9/11, purchases the 9/11 Commission Report waves away in a footnote on pg. 499 as having no connection with the events of 9/11 because the unnamed “institutional investors” responsible had “no conceivable ties to al Qaeda”. More obscure, and nowhere mentioned in the Commission Report, are the facts of the WTC computer data recovery operation undertaken in late 2001 by Convar GmbH, a German firm. Under conditions of hermetic secrecy, Convar used its proprietary technology to salvage data from the damaged hard drives of WTC tenants, as reported in December 2001 by Reuters and CNN.
“The suspicion is that inside information about the attack was used to send financial transaction commands and authorisations in the belief that amid all the chaos the criminals would have, at the very least, a good head start,” said Convar director Peter Henschel.”
“Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert at the company, said illegal transfers of more than $100 million might have been made immediately before and during the disaster.”
(((3)))

Very good and evidently very important article, but I have a comment to submit.

Quote: “When the 9/11 Commission Report was published in July 2004, it provided a completely new explanation for why the U.S. air defenses had failed to intercept any of the four hijacked planes on 9/11.”

Not quite, since UA 93 was shot down, after which it crashed into a rural field in Pa, or this is certainly what Jim Hoffman’s websites credibly state anyway: 911review.com, 911research.wtc7.net and wtc7.net. I believe that he’s right about 93 having been shot down before crashing. There apparently were or are plenty of witness accounts that make it certainly seem that shoot-down occurred.

Assuming that that’s correct/accurate, ie right, then I’d change the quoted text by saying, “When the 9/11 Commission Report was published in July 2004, it provided a completely new explanation for why the U.S. air defenses [supposedly] failed to intercept any of the four hijacked planes on 9/11”, changing “had” for supposedly.

If Hoffman has been wrong about this, then someone should inform him of this and I’m not the person to do this, due to lacking the necessary knowledge. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to believe that what he says about UA 93 is what the real story is.

Donald F. Traux,
I don’t know who you are, but you sure have a poor way of approaching serious matters. What you posted is comically exaggerated. Better is the principle of KISS, as known in computer science and meaning, “Keep It Simple Stupid”. You might have a fine idea but sure know how to mess it up, turn it into a confusing and comical mess. I don’t know what your so-called “prosecution model” is, but if you’re a lawyer and intend to use what you wrote, then I suggest reworking it. As it is, I’d throw you out of court for injecting nonsensical argumentation, if I was presiding judge.

Kevin,
Congratulations on a fantastic post/letter. I found it clear, objective, persuasive. Mr. Kara’s online resume fully substantiated your description. You have added materially to our knowledge of who the conspirators are and how they operate. Thank you for your service to truth and freedom.
I justed checked the reviews on Amazon for Another Nineteen. It looks like this post is a small tidbit compared to the book. I look forward to reading it.
Thanks again.

Quote: ” I’ve just updated this posting: The 9/11 Operation – Prepping The Cui Bono – The PNAC Projections (Updated 23 Aug 2013)
…
Many are aware of the surge in put options purchased on American and United Airlines as well as several major tenants of the WTC in the days preceding 9/11, …”

As well as several major tenants of the WTC … what? Semantically, the sentence is like saying put options were placed on these tenants, but you surely can’t mean that. My guess is that you surely mean that several major tenants were among the people who placed the put options on AA and UA. Either way, the sentence should be reworked, for it’s semantically peculiar and people shouldn’t need to guess what’s actually meant. It should be wholly clear. 9/11 Truth websites need to be clear in what the contents say.

Quote: “More obscure, and nowhere mentioned in the Commission Report, are the facts of the WTC computer data recovery operation undertaken in late 2001 by Convar GmbH, a German firm. Under conditions of hermetic secrecy, Convar used its proprietary technology to salvage data from the damaged hard drives of WTC tenants, as reported in December 2001 by Reuters and CNN”.

Is there actual proof, rather than only news media reports? If there is actual proof that Convar did rescue these hard drives, then is there more than CNN and Reuters to back this up? If we don’t know for a fact that there’s actual, like concrete, proof, then is it possible that CNN and Reuters weren’t right? F.e., maybe they misinterpreted a story about Convar working to rescue the hard (disk) drives (HDDs) and their contents but Convar eventually gave up trying, not being able to succeed, and news updates about this weren’t provided by CNN and Reuters to inform readers that a mistake had been made in their initial reports. Etc.

I’m playing Devil’s Advocate, for 9/11 Truth needs to be as accurate as humanly possible. Also, do you have links to the initial or original CNN and Reuters reports about Convar succeeding in this disk recovery work? If you don’t have links to the original copies, then what about authentic copies at trustworthy websites?

911research.wtc7.net, which I believe was created by Jim Hoffman, along with 911review.com and I think later, wtc7.net, has a copy of a Dec. 16, 2001 Reuters article.

The original link is no longer valid, but doing a regular Web search using the title of the piece turns up links for pages at Fox News and foreignpolicyjournal.com, besides others. The FPJ link is an article by Mark H. Gaffney, who has a 2-part article and an update one at 911review.com about the “9/11 mystery plane”, the E-4B over Washington, DC or vicinity when AA 77 hit the Pentagon. The author name used for the article is Mark H. Gaffney, but there’s an additional link or two returned when searching for “Mark Gaffney”. It’s the same person.

Gaffney doesn’t provide a copy of the Rtrs article. Instead, it’s linked in the reference notes, #30, and the link is for a rediff.com page. I’m not familiar with rediff.com but checked the link and the correct page is still available. It’s supposed to be for a copy of the Rtrs piece.

The link for the Fox News page is still correct, and it, as well as Gaffney’s page, have the date of Dec. 17th, rather than 16th, but Reuters published this on the 16th, since 911review.com provides a complete copy of the original piece.

Gaffney also provides a reference link for a related CNN article (also reference note #30) apparently published on Dec. 20, 2001 and the archive link is still working correctly.

What the CNN article actually says is that Convar was helping on trying to recover these drives, that 39 had been recovered using Convar’s laser technology, but there were an additional 62 drives still to work on recovering. The article therefore doesn’t say what the recovery status is about those 62 drives and also doesn’t say that put transactions were found on the 39 drives that were recovered. See the link for reference note 33 in Gaffney’s article in order to get the CNN archive link.

The Reuters article does provide the sort of information that you need, while the CNN piece apparently is only useful in stating the total number of HDDs to attempt to recover, including the 39 that had been recovered; plus the fact that Convar was working on this with other cies, etc. The CNN article is good for for little else after the Reuters piece, which is good for most of the rest that you need.

The fact that Rtrs cited Convar people in important, pertinent ways is proof enough, for while Rtrs sometimes errs, I doubt that it’d falsely cite people. It’d be highly unlikely in this case. But, even if it makes it clear that it doesn’t provide actual proof that insider trading really took place, it nonetheless cites Convar people certainly speaking about finding the put transactions and sincerely believing that the data is very probably proof that the trades were made based on insider trading, i.e., foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. It’s about strong suspicion though, rather than actual proof that the trades were really committed based on foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

That’s probably the best we have and it’s clearly worth repeating. Kevin Ryan also referred to the Rtrs article copy at 911research.wtc7.net.

To immediately jump to where Kevin cited from the Rtrs piece, just search the article for 33, for the link is #33 in the reference notes.

I’d correct how I refer to the CNN piece if I were you. You’re pretty much okay with respect to the Rtrs piece, though you shouldn’t say that it literally says that actual proof of insider trading and, therefore, of 9/11 foreknowledge was obtained from Convar et al’s recovery work on the HDDs; for it’s not what the Rtrs piece says. It refers to very strong suspicions. They’re suspicions bordering or nearly bordering definite certainty; but, it’s still about suspicions, even if very strong.

It’s important for 9/11 truth researchers to be very clear in what they say and to not distort anything they report about it in any way, to any degree. 9/11 Truth has struggled for many years against so-called truthers spreading false and debunked theories that continue to be repeated. Many people know about the latter but not the work of the best researchers and activists and it’s important for them to finally get peoples’ attention.

Regarding Mark Gaffney’s article, it seems to be wholly related, but there’s a slight problem with it. Reference note #31 is for a PDF at journalOf911Studies.com. The PDF concludes with a YouTube link for a video about Convar’s work on the WTC HDDs. The video is no longer available due to an apparent copyright infringement, according to the message I get when Proxmate or Proxtube (a Firefox add-on) seems to be able to finally get access. I did a YouTube search using the first few words of the title of the video and get two relevant links. The following one seems to have a more exactly fitting title though.

I’ll quote the Google translation of the text description provided with the video that’s subtitled in English: “In the ZDF news broadcast of 11 March 2002, the “Heute Journal” reported on the treatment of data disks from the World Trade Center in our modern data recovery center, at Pirmasens (Rheinland-Pfalz)”.

“Evidence of Insider Trading on the Attacks of September 11
Did Investors have foreknowledge of the attacks?
By Kevin Ryan Global Research, November 23, 2010
foreignpolicyjournal.com 23 November 2010″

I already provided the GlobalResearch.ca link for the article and just want to point out that its reference #17, which is for “Lewis Paul Bremer III on Washington, DC, NBC4 TV, 11 September 2001, Vehmgericht http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/08/lewis-paul-bremer-iii-on-washington-dc.html“, is for a page that’s still available, but there’s a problem with it. The video doesn’t play, doesn’t even show up for me. It was uploaded to Google videos in 2007 or earlier and doesn’t play. However, a Web search using the title provides a link for what appears to be a valid copy.

I downloaded the video and it definitely seems to be a complete copy of the one Kevin Ryan originally intended for readers to listen to. Bremer is darkly hilarious; evil, impersonification. I can say plenty about what he said but will keep it simple by saying that he’s full of toxic bullshit.

By “his people” when speaking of Bremer, it’s a guess, but I think you mean Americans, rather than family, friends, or people he closely worked with. If the guess is right, then I wouldn’t refer to Americans in general as his, Obama’s, … people. We’re not their people. They’re treachorous and our “enemies from within”, instead.

A good read, I have some little compassion for these professional killers’ inability to see 9/11 for what we know it to be. I suppose more compassion than I had – to accept the truth means to accept guilt/responsibility for your country’s murders and your participation. That is a huge hill to climb for anyone – Kara, et. al. must cling to every last reed or accept truth and seek forgiveness – not what warriors do, hanging on and then falling on the sword is the behavior we can expect.